More and more evidence everyday of a prime mover from a variety of disciplines. There is a reason you cowards won't dare bring an accountable position of your own to debate. I don't debate nothing and that's all you got. Doesn't stop you dullards from repeating it though does it?Nothing Bless

Where is this evidence you speak of? So far nothing but assertions has been presented. If you do not present actual evidence, then you are lying.

Wasn't it you that demanded videotaped evidence LOL. You will certainly not be the adjudicater of what is and isn't evidence. You loons have given your rules for evidence, but have no example of it in this arena.

Get your nothing out of here. This is your forum. I have no desire to debate nothing. I will debate the evidences and reasons for belief in a prime mover vs ???? You want no part of this challenge though do you bigot. You skipped over your nothing again.

So he was basically using the argument from authority logical fallacy.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>Nope. Reading his wiki, it shows he is pretty much a moron.A highly educated moron to be sure-- but that's not all that unusual.He's still a creationist-moron.As >>all<< creationists are-- without exception.

Wasn't it you that demanded videotaped evidence LOL. You will certainly not be the adjudicater of what is and isn't evidence. You loons have given your rules for evidence, but have no example of it in this arena.Get your nothing out of here. This is your forum. I have no desire to debate nothing. I will debate the evidences and reasons for belief in a prime mover vs ???? You want no part of this challenge though do you bigot. You skipped over your nothing again.Fight God, hate him, march, march, march, shout, yell, march.

Pure projection here. Why do you take your advice and get your nothing out of here?

<quoted text>Fossil recordEvolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

Well, duh. There is no limit to the number of names we can come up with. People could give every fossil ever found its own, individual name. BTW, what clouds "look like" is purely subjective.

Langoliers wrote:

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Have you considered taking a biology class?

Langoliers wrote:

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

LOL. What BS. A group of people who don't believe in plate tectonics. It would make sense that there would be gaps in the fossil records. Surely, only a small percentage of dead plants and animals fossilize, and we've only found a small percentage of those fossils. But even in what has been found, there is evidence of evolution.

As soon as Rose presents an accountable position of belief that meets the standards she holds others to I'm willing to debate her. Of course Rose doesn't have an explanation for her hypocrisy.

My accountable position will be a prime mover. Why don't you nothings appoint a spokesperson and either bring some substance or let the forum about nothing die. Your nothing was a mistake in 2009. In 2013 its a record of lunacy.

There is what I call, "the myth of Atheist obligation". That is a belief that because an atheist doesn't believe in god, they have to come up with an explanation of how everything began. I'll admit there will always be a question about the origins of life, the universe and everything I can't answer. But that doesn't mean I going to accept the clearly absurd creation myth in Genesis. I'll just say I don't know. And until there is evidence god exists, there is no reason to believe he does.

You lied again Rose. That expected from atheists. Your disbelief doesn't need to be repeated. We get it. You are entitled to a forum about nothing but I'm entitled not to debate it. Especially, in light of me exposing you have absolutely no evidence in this arena that meets your own criteria. The reality is you ate just a bigot ill prepared to debate an accountable position. Such as the one I've submitted. Prime mover. How does Rose quantify evidence: something from nothing, always was, prime mover.

Get your nothing out of here. You have a deep seated hate of a God you don't believe in and nothing more.

Epic fail Rose.

If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of it.There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.Rose has no conscience.

You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 64,830 plus posts in.Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

<quoted text>Well, duh. There is no limit to the number of names we can come up with. People could give every fossil ever found its own, individual name. BTW, what clouds "look like" is purely subjective.

Langoliers wrote, "If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts."

Have you considered taking a biology class?

Langoliers wrote, " Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html&... ;

LOL. What BS. A group of people who don't believe in plate tectonics. It would make sense that there would be gaps in the fossil records. Surely, only a small percentage of dead plants and animals fossilize, and we've only found a small percentage of those fossils. But even in what has been found, there is evidence of evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.